Signs of Ni

[Reverie]

That's a great way of putting it.
I read a blog post comment by an ESTP last night about Se inferiors in his/her opinion having garish taste. Maybe. I like primary colors and if I dress for work it is pretty outlandish. Visual communicative part of the musician thing. Otherwise I wouldn't probably care to stand out so much
Anyway... Fashion is a good example. My very stylish ESTP friend looks at all the magazines, music videos, people at parties to see what's the most cutting edge thing right now and is an impeccable dresser with a carefully crafted image. They pick up on what all the most stylish influental people are wearing and combine that elegantly for their own style.
I on the other hand usually dressing in something outlandish and slightly more obscure and weird.
This I attribute to Ni acting: I start picking up subtle cues subconsciously and find myself noticing some things as attractive. In time it begins to form images in my head and it gathers in my mind as a complete style: I start wearing some type of clothing I like and at that point it's still an obscure style of dress, a subculture thing (The same styles are always recycled so there are always active subcultures wearing a specific style.)
In my previous experience my passive "eye" is very accurate: 2 years or so it will become cutting edge and 4 years fashionable, 5-7 years mainstream. By this time I'd naturally be absolutely bored with it and moved on, because something else is in the air. I wasn't aware I was doing it even but in retrospect it happens.
All that said I don't really care much for fashion or being fashionable or any of that. It doesn't interest me in itself. It's always as a crafted part of a bigger picture/action plan. The parts form wholes and themes that build up. Always future oriented.

Though (because culture is my area of interest I use it as an example) I don't see myself as innovative. I see fashion and culture as a wave that is always moving. I'm part of the first mass of water that starts to move forward, not the peak, or the larger mass of the wave, nor the last ripple. I just move along. My part is to participate which I'll naturally do if I'm following my guiding light and being my Ni self, manifesting the coming movement in culture. I'm a worker bee, not the queen. ;D

 

[animenagai]

Thanks [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]

I understood your explanation but I'm still having problems visualising the entire process, mainly because I'm stuck in thinking in Si terms. Like the lego analogy to me seems to be imperfect because lego blocks are obviously seperate objects, whereas Se does not seem to like to think of most things as objects if I understand things correctly. Se is more about general environments. I can understand how someone can focus on the relationships between objects, but the relationships present in different environments... that takes a fundamental perspecitve shift that will take time for me to truly understand. Care to explain your process of analyses through a real life example rather than an analogy (I'm a big boy, I can take it)?

 

[Reverie]

Thanks @<a href="http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/member.php?u=9310" target="_blank">uumlau</a>

I understood your explanation but I'm still having problems visualising the entire process, mainly because I'm stuck in thinking in Si terms. Like the lego analogy to me seems to be imperfect because lego blocks are obviously seperate objects, whereas Se does not seem to like to think of most things as objects if I understand things correctly. Se is more about general environments. I can understand how someone can focus on the relationships between objects, but the relationships present in different environments... that takes a fundamental perspecitve shift that will take time for me to truly understand. Care to explain your process of analyses through a real life example rather than an analogy (I'm a big boy, I can take it)?

Se rundown:

A CD cover

Pamela Anderson, actress

Stone Age figurine

Leonard Cohen's letter to the head of his Zen monastery when he got out of dodge ;D

The planet Venus

Ni rundown of the pictures:
The eternal archetype of the temptress

So if you wanted to choose an image for "a temptress" you could also easily stick the picture of the planet Venus there if you're Ni dom. Or if that's what you want to portray you could use a vast array of images that might seem random if your mind wasn't focused on their symbolic nature.

 

[Cellmold]

I won't try to elaborate on Uumlau's explanations, but here's how I see it. I can't really look at anything with Ni, unless it is something rather open-ended like a problem, question, or creative opportunity. Ni is too indirect for looking at things that are concrete or well-established. Even though I may not look, though, I will see all sorts of things, but more through Ni than with Ni. Pasts and implications do not stream outward from these things. The things form connections with other things that may not even have been part of my conscious thought at the outset, and it is this whole that forms the web, an apt metaphor. The web is not a reaching out from all the things, it is rather a bringing together of the things into a single, meaningful pattern. When Ni is working well, this will reveal the solution to the problem, the answer to the question, or the fundamental form of the creative output required.

The part where I said it is then formulated into a new insight or way of looking at something is what you are describing here. Like a filter effect. I should have elaborated more with my description. Ni can be quite obsessive afterall. The implications and pasts are all potential options, this is all part of the predicting effect of Ni, it is asking a question of 'Why?' not answering it with a 'Because'. You are right about the conscious thought part, that's something I forgot to put in which I have in previous descriptions. I suppose it's almost as if it has been working on a problem without the person being aware of it, but the solution is not of a concrete nature, it is completely abstract, although a judging function can of course ground this somewhat, especially in INTJ's with their Te. I suppose my terminology was off, I should have said through rather than with, as with is more of a judging function word to my mind.

And perception is perception; both an INTJ and an ESFP are aware of the same things, physical or not, you merely look at them in different ways. From what you said I can say that you cant not look at physical objects through Ni....it's your dominant....you look at everything through Ni.

Look at how Ni might glance at a fork and suddenly receive a bombardment of information.

A fork is not merely a tool for eating, it represents an inventive drive to produce something of use that is new or fresh, it is a living metaphor for the human race and it's ability at using what is around it, tools have always been our biggest non-living allies. What about why or how it was created in the past as well? What was the drive behind it? How was it conceived? What sparked it off? What else could be created? Can anything new of use be created? Are we now at an impasse of creativity?.... and so on....

Ni would look at all these things and then filter it down to something more singular maybe, but perhaps there is a difference in how Ni might work within an INTJ and INFJ in terms of what other functions it is accompanied by.

Of course it is important to remember that Ni could be like Si in one important respect, that each individual experiences it in a completely different and personally intense way.

 

[INTP]

much as INTPs can enter a weird Fe-mode in which they do their best to "be Fe", and ... um ... fail.

yea its the same as with INTJs and seeing what is(Se). oh wait, i forgot that INTJs are the supreme masterminds that have no flaws.

but on more serious note, inferior isnt always failing. and i think its wrong to talk of going into Fe/Te/Fi/whateverfunction mode. some situations require more of some function and naturally a healthy individual tries to use the appropriate function in that situation. when talking about inferior, it can be hard to go against dom function if the two functions disagree on judgment(in INTPs case worth of something in external world to what makes sense from logical point of view) or perceptions of something doesent seem to match(in INTJs case external detail to inner big picture). whether someone is able to go against the dom function when needed, really determines whether you fail or not..

 

[INTP]

[MENTION=4894]animenagai[/MENTION]

In simple terms, an Si system is built in terms of where the things should go in the system.

no, Si is about 'what is' perception from subjective standpoint(created by eliminating irrelevant stuff from external world to make a subjective view of the objective judgments or perceptions), not about where things should be going, thats a combination of N and judging functions.

An Ni system is built in terms of where the functionality should go in the system. An analogy might be a library's card catalog for Si, a system where you need to know what something (a book) is called in order to figure out where it is in the system, and a computer or smart phone, where you need to know what something (an application) does in order to figure out where it is in the system.

the functionality part is a judgment, not Ni, same with the should. Ni(like Si) is irrational function, it doesent make rational decisions, it simply perceives connections and eliminating irrelevant(like Si and other introverted functions), thus creating subjective view of the objective judgments or perceptions.

A more apt (but more technical) analogy is object oriented vs functional programming languages: Si is object oriented, where the code is centered on building things (objects) that have properties and methods, while Ni is functional, where the code is centered on building functionality than on building things. In C#, an object oriented language, every entity is an object: even integer, Boolean or string variables ... even functions are objects (when treated as a delegate). In F#, a functional programming language, every entity is a function ... even a "variable" is simply a function that is defined as taking no arguments and returning a specific result, and an "object" is simply a function that takes no arguments and returns the object.

As such, Ni systems will tend to center around modeling the dynamic behavior of things, while Si systems will center around the more static relationships between things. To Ni, the "things" are merely details of the system, while to Si, the functionality is merely one kind of detail of the "things" in the system.

These are just overall tendencies of course. Ni doesn't ignore the "things" any more than Si ignores the functionality, but there is definitely a preference on the part of each.

this is just utter bullshit and goes against what everyone has been saying about typology till today..

 

[Coriolis]

And perception is perception; both an INTJ and an ESFP are aware of the same things, physical or not, you merely look at them in different ways. From what you said I can say that you cant not look at physical objects through Ni....it's your dominant....you look at everything through Ni.

Look at how Ni might glance at a fork and suddenly receive a bombardment of information.

I can't not see things through Ni, but I at least find it hard to consciously direct my Ni "eye" at a specific, concrete target. It's almost as if such things are viewed through some sort of peripheral vision, with the overall web, inferred meaning, or solution occupying the center of my field of view. Yes, as a scientist I can make accurate observations with the best of them, but to fix my attention on a concrete element in the here-and-now takes effort.

yea its the same as with INTJs and seeing what is(Se). oh wait, i forgot that INTJs are the supreme masterminds that have no flaws.

but on more serious note, inferior isnt always failing. and i think its wrong to talk of going into Fe/Te/Fi/whateverfunction mode. some situations require more of some function and naturally a healthy individual tries to use the appropriate function in that situation.

INTJ Se-fail is not failing to see what is, but rather failing to be truly present in the moment with it. The classic examples are forgetting where we put things, not noticing the (almost literal) elephant in the room, and more broadly, just plain being so future focused in our own heads that we fail to notice and appreciate what is right there around us.

As for the highlighted, not only will people incorporate less preferred functions where needed, but no function operates in a vacuum, however much we like to discuss them in those terms. Functions work in concert, which influences how a given function is expressed in different types (e.g. Ni with Te vs. Fe)

 

[Cellmold]

I can't not see things through Ni, but I at least find it hard to consciously direct my Ni "eye" at a specific, concrete target. It's almost as if such things are viewed through some sort of peripheral vision, with the overall web, inferred meaning, or solution occupying the center of my field of view. Yes, as a scientist I can make accurate observations with the best of them, but to fix my attention on a concrete element in the here-and-now takes effort.

But I never claimed it didn't work like that, I was just using metaphors. All I was trying to get across is that Ni would be on all the time. The idea of focusing it on something concrete was brought up by you, not me, I was merely replying to that by presenting an example of Ni as it would be based around the context of something literal, if we are talking about thoughts and idea's then it's insights would be completely different.

I wasn't saying that Ni is aware of physical objects as in "I see a spoon, there it is...now lets look at implications" although it may have come across that way. It's more that these implications become the object, what it is on the surface is barely noted in passing, what it could represent, or be or has been; is more what Ni might focus on in the context of a physical object.

Basically what I failed to communicate is that this is automatic, you are not aware of it which is what you essentially said in the first sentence of what I quoted. In that sense we're on the same page.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I feel it's like Ni is like this 3D cloud enveloping thought. And most everything, except perhaps what is gleaned by Si/Ne/Se, every thought, must pass through it if it is going to embed in my psyche. It does feel 'peripheral' but just because it is always hovering, always present, working.

It's like Ni is hair conditioner. It teases out the tangles and coats it with a silky barrier.

 

[1487610420]

If person is:

 

[INTP]

INTJ Se-fail is not failing to see what is, but rather failing to be truly present in the moment with it. The classic examples are forgetting where we put things, not noticing the (almost literal) elephant in the room, and more broadly, just plain being so future focused in our own heads that we fail to notice and appreciate what is right there around us.

bolded is about failing to see 'what is'. its funny that you failed to see that what i said was exactly what you said (i dont mean this in a mean way)

As for the highlighted, not only will people incorporate less preferred functions where needed, but no function operates in a vacuum, however much we like to discuss them in those terms. Functions work in concert, which influences how a given function is expressed in different types (e.g. Ni with Te vs. Fe)

again you say the same thing as i do, but just word it differently

these mistakes are exactly what i was talking about; not using enough Se in the whole process, so Ni gets sort of detached(too much) from reality and the big picture from Ni is not as much in line with reality as it ought to be, leading to misconceptions and assumptions about reality(like here the mistake where you see me being wrong, when in reality your opinion is the same as mine)

 

[Ginkgo]

One not using precise language doesn't mean one failed to see what is.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

these mistakes are exactly what i was talking about; not using enough Se in the whole process, so Ni gets sort of detached(too much) from reality and the big picture from Ni is not as much in line with reality as it ought to be, leading to misconceptions and assumptions about reality(like here the mistake where you see me being wrong, when in reality your opinion is the same as mine)

What is reality? Seriously, not to be all Philosophical, but I think reality is relative, and very subjective.

 

[Coriolis]

bolded is about failing to see 'what is'. its funny that you failed to see that what i said was exactly what you said (i dont mean this in a mean way)

again you say the same thing as i do, but just word it differently

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding to your comments, and elaborating on the simple observation "its the same as with INTJs and seeing what is(Se)".

these mistakes are exactly what i was talking about; not using enough Se in the whole process, so Ni gets sort of detached(too much) from reality and the big picture from Ni is not as much in line with reality as it ought to be, leading to misconceptions and assumptions about reality(like here the mistake where you see me being wrong, when in reality your opinion is the same as mine)

But I didn't assume you were wrong. I just couldn't be sure we really were saying the same thing until I explained my perspective in more detail, and got some confirmation from you, same as in my exchange with AA. I am certainly guilty of the highlighted at times, but perhaps because I know that, I am very cautious about making assumptions in conversations. (Now if I don't have an opportunity to cross-check my understanding with you and I have to act, all bets are off. I will turn Ni/Te loose, make the best judgment I can, and carry on.)

 

[INTP]

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding to your comments, and elaborating on the simple observation "its the same as with INTJs and seeing what is(Se)".


But I didn't assume you were wrong. I just couldn't be sure we really were saying the same thing until I explained my perspective in more detail, and got some confirmation from you, same as in my exchange with AA. I am certainly guilty of the highlighted at times, but perhaps because I know that, I am very cautious about making assumptions in conversations. (Now if I don't have an opportunity to cross-check my understanding with you and I have to act, all bets are off. I will turn Ni/Te loose, make the best judgment I can, and carry on.)

you said this: "INTJ Se-fail is not failing to see what is". It means that you disagree with me, as i said that it is about failing to see 'what is'

 

[INTP]

What is reality? Seriously, not to be all Philosophical, but I think reality is relative, and very subjective.

what i meant here is that, if there is a dog in front of you, and you say that it is a cat, you are wrong and you perceiving a cat there is not the reality that you are perceiving

 

[Coriolis]

you said this: "INTJ Se-fail is not failing to see what is". It means that you disagree with me, as i said that it is about failing to see 'what is'

You seem very eager to find a disagreement where none exists (except as to whether there is a disagreement). I was making a distinction between (1) a complete failure to see, and (2) a manner of seeing that is not adequate or productive. Your comment was general enough to potentially encompass both, indeed any mode of Se-failure. I wanted to be more specific about exactly what failure mode I see/experience. Clarification and elaboration is not disagreement, especially when you confirm that "you say the same thing as I do".

 

[INTP]

You seem very eager to find a disagreement where none exists (except as to whether there is a disagreement). I was making a distinction between (1) a complete failure to see, and (2) a manner of seeing that is not adequate or productive. Your comment was general enough to potentially encompass both, indeed any mode of Se-failure. I wanted to be more specific about exactly what failure mode I see/experience. Clarification and elaboration is not disagreement, especially when you confirm that "you say the same thing as I do".

but you communicated disagreement(which didnt exist) by saying that INTJ Se failure is not about not seeing 'what is', its only natural that i read what you say and respond accordingly..

i thought it was obvious that i wasnt talking about going blind, deaf and losing all body sensations(after all, i was talking about Se, if i were talking about going blind/deaf, i would had said that INTJs fail to see all that are or that they go blind/deaf, but that would be so ridiculous and nothing to do with Se..), but about not registering certain things(or certain aspects of things) that are right in front of your face.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Ni dominant people should revel in the secrets of the cosmos!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

what i meant here is that, if there is a dog in front of you, and you say that it is a cat, you are wrong and you perceiving a cat there is not the reality that you are perceiving

these mistakes are exactly what i was talking about; not using enough Se in the whole process, so Ni gets sort of detached(too much) from reality and the big picture from Ni is not as much in line with reality as it ought to be, leading to misconceptions and assumptions about reality(like here the mistake where you see me being wrong, when in reality your opinion is the same as mine)

Agreed about not using enough Se. But sometimes things are not as they seem. So using just Se, or using Se primarily, might prohibit someone from seeing truth behind the scenes, which can present an alternate reality, if you will.